< February 23	February 25 >

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Spanish-language television programming. BHG's suggestion seems like it solves all the problems: it is neutral toward content (unlike series), and neutral toward WP:ENGVAR (unlike programs/programmes). Let's see a wider nomination on this.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Spanish-language television shows to Category:Spanish-language television series

Nominator's rationale: Rename? I noticed a few days ago that for some unfathomable reason we had separate categories for Category:Spanish-language television shows and Category:Spanish-language television series. As the "shows" category was populated and structured correctly, while the "series" one had been selectively applied only to a random partial selection of individual USian and/or Mexican shows (presumably the ones that personally interested the creator) and was not being used the way such categories are actually supposed to be, I temporarily redirected the incomplete category to the thorough one. Despite that, there is a valid case to be made that we should potentially be renaming it to the "series" wording instead of "shows", as "series" is the format that most (though not all) sibling categories in Category:Television programming by language use — however, it may also be preferable to standardize all of the sibling categories on an entirely new naming format ("shows", "programming", etc.) that avoids the perennial series vs. programme problem. What say we, good folks of CFD? Bearcat (talk) 19:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now. Not all shows are series, and it seems better to retain the more inclusive title. I was going to suggest a reverse merge, but I see that there is a wider inconsistency in the category tree: the first-level subcats of Category:Television programming by language use a mixture of "shows", "series" and "programmes". However, Category:Television programming by country is standardized on "programming" or programmes" (or "programs" for the users of US English). I suggest that the solution is a wider renaming of the subcats of Category:Television programming by language to use "programming". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:57, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I did note in my nomination that I was open to picking a new alternative name instead. Regardless, however, it is critical that it be named consistently with its sibling categories in Category:Television programming by language — I do agree that "programming" is a better choice, but wanted to leave that open for discussion in case it raised issues that I wasn't fully aware of. So I'd be more than happy to withdraw this early if someone is prepared to formulate a batch nomination to set a new convention for the whole tree — but the one thing we cannot do is just leave everything as it currently stands without some kind of change coming out of this process. Bearcat (talk) 03:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Spanish-language television programming, as a step to the complete renaming BHG suggests. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename to "in Great Britain". The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:British railway request stops to Category:Railway request stops in the United Kingdom or Category:Railway request stops in Great Britain
• Propose renaming Category:British railway stations without public access to Category:Railway stations in the United Kingdom without public access or Category:Railway stations in Great Britain without public access
• Propose renaming Category:British railway stations without road access to Category:Railway stations in the United Kingdom without road access or Category:Railway stations in Great Britain without road access

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Consistency with the parent category (Railway stations in the United Kingdom), and most other railway station categories. Vclaw (talk) 18:04, 24 February 2013 (UTC) Added an option for Great Britain. --Vclaw (talk) 12:29, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the last two as being trivial and not defining. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose renaming. The current title accurately defines the scope as relating to the island of Great Britain. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has two separate rail systems: a) an interconnected rail network in Great Britain, on standard gauge; b) the separate and incompatible Northern Ireland Railways running on the wider Irish gauge. The two systems should not be lumped together. It may be appropriate to create a separate set of categories for Northern Ireland, in which case a United Kingdom category should be created as a common parent, but none of the articles in these categories relate to Northern Ireland. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'British' is ambiguous as it can refer to either GB or UK (or the 'British Isles'), it doesn't accurately define the scope. I agree that it would make sense to have separate categories for GB and Ireland railways, as they are separate systems. Though that is a separate issue, which has been discussed numerous times before. Nearly all of the current categories are for "railway stations in the United Kingdom", so it makes sense to keep them consistent.--Vclaw (talk) 01:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Foo in Great Britain (changing my !vote) to clarify scope, but oppose renaming to United Kingdom. As noted above, a UK parent category may be appropriate, but Northern Ireland stations should not lumped in with those in GB. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• delete/split all The British-to-UK renaming makes sense; no other train category does a "British" split-out that I see off-hand. However, the first two categories are not defining, to the point where there is a fair degree of inaccurate categorization, largely brought on by schedule changes or by changes to station surroundings. Stations convert back and forth between regular and flag stops as traffic demands; public access to stations is governed by their locations. The third category strikes me as something of a bit of trivia. It seems to me that all three categories need to go away. Mangoe (talk) 23:24, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. What next? Category:British railway stations without a ticket office? Category:British railway stations without a pay and display car park? Overcat at its worst. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's rather an OTHERSTUFF argument. An optimist on the run!   11:21, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, as that is for Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Exists being the key word, as they don't exist. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose renaming - per BrownHairedGirl, though I'd support renaming to Category:Railway request stops in Great Britain for the first example, and similarly for the other two. Also Strongly oppose deletion, at least for latter two - this seems to be jumping on the bandwagon as this is a proposal for renaming, not deletion. If you want a better reason for deletion, stations with road access, or any public access at all, are very unusual in the UK (twenty out of several thousand), therefore categorising them together helps users to find other examples. It may be feasible to merge them though. An optimist on the run!   10:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Changing to Support renaming to second alternative in each case. An optimist on the run!   14:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Amtrak flag stops are rare too, generally no more than one or two per train route. But we don't categorize them that way because it's all a question of how Amtrak feels like scheduling them; from time to time they get changed to regular stops, or a regular stop get reduced to a flag stop. Mangoe (talk) 14:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This has nothing to do with Amtrak - we are discussing British stations. The pattern of request stops does not change in Great Britain very much, and the access or lack thereof to stations changes even less. In any case, I said above, this is a nomination for renaming, not deletion. An optimist on the run!   15:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• We can choose to delete the categories to resolve the renaming problem. I don't see the point in hinging a complete rename/restructure of all the UK station categories on three categories which address what it seems to me are bits of minor timetable info. After all, if the rename is refused (or the "Britain" targets are preferred), the next logical step is to apply the same arguments to the whole of the UK station structure, since all of the naming problems apply to the whole structure as well. Mangoe (talk) 15:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• In general, the UK structure is already subdivided into England, Scotland and Wales, as well as Northern Ireland, so the problem isn't so great. It would simply mean slipping in an extra level. An optimist on the run!   16:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Wouldn't that imply renaming and then splitting out in the same pattern as for the rest of the UK structure? Mangoe (talk) 19:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose renaming - UK is not a very helpful defining category when in comes to railways. Edgepedia (talk) 11:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support renaming - as per parent category. Northern Ireland stations can be dealt with in a subcategory if need be. In any event, as Vclaw has pointed out, "British" covers both GB and UK. No big deal. Lamberhurst (talk) 13:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - There is a difference between the UK and GB. Anyone that does not fully understand this difference should gain and understanding before joining this debate. I think renaming to Category:Railway request stops in Great Britain and Category:Railway request stops in Northern Ireland would work, and they will both fit well under the parent category (Railway stations in the United Kingdom). Bhtpbank (talk) 11:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • We agree about the difference, but the scope of the current categories is Great Britain (there are no Northern Ireland stations in these categories). So why are you supporting the nominator's proposal to place these articles directly in a United Kingdom category, rather than in a "British" or "Great Britain" category? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:34, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • You quite clearly do not understand the difference. Northern Ireland is not a part of Great Britain, but it is a part of the United Kingdom. Thus the proposed change does work. Please do not respond until you have a basic grasp of the geography of this area. Bhtpbank (talk) 12:42, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I understand the difference very clearly, thank you, as would be evident to you if you had read what I wrote above on 21:51, 24 February. Please try a little WP:CIVILity, and don't try to be patronising when you haven't read a discussion.
        So I will ask again. If you want a UK-wide category, then we can created a UK-wide category as a parent for this and for any Northern Ireland category. But the current category consists only of articles relating to Great Britain, and not Northern Ireland. Its ambiguous title does not make this clear, so surely the logical solution is to rename it to an unambiguous title using "Great Britain"? Instead, you are supporting the nominator's proposal to rename it to United Kingdom, which widens its scope. Why do you want to deprive us of a GB-specific category? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • You have twisted what I actually said. What I said was creating two categories; one for Great Britain, and a one for Northern Ireland. Both would then sit comfortably under the parent category of the United Kingdom. If you have anything further to say then please try not to distort what I have actually said. Bhtpbank (talk) 13:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, I have not misrepresented you.
            You want to rename the category to "United Kingdom", then move all the articles into a new "Great Britain" subcategory. Why not simply rename this category, and create the UK category as a parent? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Please re-read my original post. I think you sre a WP:TROLL.Bhtpbank (talk) 16:20, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • You really should try to be civil.
                I have indeed re-read your original post, and you support the nominator's proposal to rename the British category to UK. I presume that since you are a very infrequent editor you may not yet be familiar with how the category system works, but what you are supporting will lead to somebody having to manually recategorise every article currently in these categories. They are currently in a "British" category, and if that was renamed to "Great Britain" then all the articles would be correctly categorised, at the GB category could be added in one edit to a new UK parent category. However, if the current category is renames to UK, then every page in that new UK category will have to be individually moved from that UK category to a new GB category. Same outcome, but a lot more work. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• rename/split if kept Assuming the "type of station" categorization is kept, there is still a problem in that the current "by place" categorization goes against the rest of the UK station structure. There is no other "in Britain" set of categories: under Category:Railway stations in the United Kingdom we have Category:Railway stations in Wales, as well as for N. Ireland, England, and Scotland. There isn't a "British" layer in this. Therefore these should be renamed and split if kept, as follows:

• Category:Railway request stops in the United Kingdom container for

• Category:Railway request stops in England
• Category:Railway request stops in Wales
• etc.

• Category:Railway stations in the United Kingdom without public access container for

• Category:Railway stations in England without public access
• Category:Railway stations in Wales without public access
• etc.

• Category:Railway stations in the United Kingdom without road access container for

• Category:Railway stations in England without road access
• Category:Railway stations in Wales without road access
• etc.

This allows the child categories to sit directly in Category:Railway stations in Wales, etc., where they belong. Mangoe (talk) 14:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be overcategorisation for stations without road acceess or stations without public access. Each of these categories only have about 10 members, and are unlikely to grow much. So need to split into Scotland/England/Wales.

Though I do think the request stops could be split.--Vclaw (talk) 17:30, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the "no public access" category case more closely, I see that all the members are in England except on on the Isle of Wight (the IBM railway station shouldn't be in the category as the article says there is public access). So I would agree that this category could stay at the UK level. The "no roads" category is spread out enough to give two or three members in each country that has members, so I don't see an obstacle in splitting it. Mangoe (talk) 18:40, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I agree with Vclaw on the overcat point. I would be tempted to say that splitting the request stops cat also risks falling into overcat territory, particularly as most are in Wales or Scotland. To avoid overcomplicating matters, I would have a preference for not creating a separate GB cat within the UK cat. Lamberhurst (talk) 18:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename -- I think the GB target is the appropriate one, as I do not see any Northern Ireland stations mentioned. While I am not opposed in pronciple to splitting the first one, it is not so large as to make this vital. I would oppose splitting the private stations and tose without roads, because they are too small to warrnat splitting. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: speedy merge per WP:C2E. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose merging Category:Suicides in Bangladesh to Category:Suicide by country

Nominator's rationale: Merge, without prejudice to re-creation if justified. This category "suicides" should be for biographies of people who have committed suicide, but I cannot find any to put into it. Currently, it just holds a general article, and if this category was kept then the general article should move up into a new head category category:Suicide in Bangladesh. – Fayenatic London 17:09, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Category creator's support and request to quick-merge: I, category creator, support the merge request. Frankly, when I wrote that article, I created the category too, but, it seems it was done incorrectly. --Tito Dutta (talk) 17:48, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge per nom. If and when there are actually articles about Bangladeshi people who committed suicide to file in it, then certainly by all means it should be recreated — but as long as the only article that can be filed in it is a head overview article about the concept, then the category isn't needed yet. Bearcat (talk) 19:42, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: split per nom. I have moved the three images (File:Dragon Day 1996.jpg, File:Cornell Dragon Day 2006.jpg, and File:Dragonday 2008.jpg) to Category:Cornell University images. If anyone would like to move them to commons that would be wonderful. delldot ∇. 18:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose splitting Category:Dragon Day to Category:Cornell University and Category:Cornell University images

Nominator's rationale: WP:OC#SMALL. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Split/merge per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete after moving the three images to commons. The article is in Category:Cornell University. If we can't move the images, the split is OK. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:22, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: relisted at CFD 2013 March 4. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose renaming Category:Lexington–Fayette metropolitan area to Category:Lexington–Fayette, KY Metropolitan Statistical Area

Nominator's rationale: Main article of the category is Lexington–Fayette, KY Metropolitan Statistical Area. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The proposed move is a step in the wrong direction. Instead of renaming the category, reconsider the title and scope of the main article -- or whether it's the right main article. Metropolitan areas, sui generis, are economically, culturally, and governmentally important population concentrations that are a useful basis for categorization. However, Metropolitan Statistical Areas (geographic areas defined and delineated by the U.S. federal government for various official statistical purposes) are just one of several official and unofficial definitions for metropolitan areas. The fact that there is an article about a particular Metropolitan Statistical Area, but not about the more generically defined "metropolitan area", does not mean that the category scope is or should be defined by the federal government's statistical construct. Additionally, regardless of other aspects of the scope and name, we should not use postal abbreviations like "KY" in the names articles or categories. Rename this one to "Lexington–Fayette, Kentucky metropolitan area". --Orlady (talk) 05:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Orlady's argument.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (also, applicable to the discussions below) Do we have reliable sources that tell us with certainty what the boundaries of this metropolitan area are? Other than the fed gov't's various "statistical construct"s? Or are we making our own "constructs" which seems contrary to WP:NOR - that we don't even have an article to match the current title may be indicative of the negative.... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suspect that the valid statement would be that reliable sources may or may not exist for metro areas. What the government defines as the metropolitan area, and statistics are released for, may not be what others use as the metro area. Reliable sources may help in some cases, but probably not all. We may find that each of these needs to be discussed on its merits. One other comment on the government's metropolitan areas. They change over time. In the case of mine, I believe in the recent past it covered parts of two states and I think three counties. It now covers just one county. Is this a good source for categories? Vegaswikian (talk) 07:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • In practice, metropolitan areas have a reality that defies precise definitions, but the typical metro area will have several different (and discordant) government definitions. These multiple governmental definitions can include the Metropolitan Statistical Area, possibly a Consolidated Statistical Area, possibly a Metropolitan Division (all of these are defined by the Office of Management and Budget and the Census Bureau); a metropolitan transportation planning region (typically defined by the state using Department of Transportation criteria and census data); one or more metropolitan authorities that operate metro-wide services such as transit or a parks system; and metro-region economic development partnerships. For purposes of categorization, I think it makes sense to allow the category to include articles related to any and all of these discordant definitions of the metro area, rather than insisting on a rigid definition based on a particular census construct. --Orlady (talk) 04:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • That implies a subjective definition of the category. Something we generally do not endorse. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:00, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think it's "subjective", so much as it is "imprecise". --Orlady (talk) 14:33, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: relisted at CFD 2013 March 4. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose renaming Category:Bradenton–Sarasota–Venice metropolitan area to Category:North Port–Bradenton–Sarasota, Florida Metropolitan Statistical Area

Nominator's rationale: The main article of the category is North Port–Bradenton–Sarasota, Florida Metropolitan Statistical Area. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:24, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per arguments on the above discussion. The metro area and the statistical area are not the same thing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for same reasons as Johnpacklambert cites. --Orlady (talk) 04:46, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: relisted at CFD 2013 March 4. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose renaming Category:Evansville metropolitan area to Category:Evansville, IN–KY, Metropolitan Statistical Area

Nominator's rationale: The main article of the category is Evansville, IN–KY, Metropolitan Statistical Area. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this is the common way to refer to it, and the reference does not always mean the statistical area.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Instead, either keep current name or rename to Category:Evansville, Indiana-Kentucky, metropolitan area. As discussed above, it's not a good idea to rigidly define metropolitan area categories as "Metropolitan Statistical Area" categories. It may be appropriate to add the state identifications here, but postal abbreviations such as IN and KY don't belong in category names. --Orlady (talk) 04:51, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: relisted at CFD 2013 March 4. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose renaming Category:Utica–Rome metropolitan area to Category:Utica-Rome Metropolitan Statistical Area

Nominator's rationale: The main article of the category is Utica-Rome Metropolitan Statistical Area. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this is the common way to refer to it, and the reference does not always mean the statistical area.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (meaning keep current name). As discussed above, it's not a good idea to rigidly define metropolitan area categories as "Metropolitan Statistical Area" categories. --Orlady (talk) 04:52, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: relisted at CFD 2013 March 4. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose renaming Category:Salem, Oregon metropolitan area to Category:Salem Metropolitan Statistical Area
• Propose renaming Category:Salem, Oregon metropolitan geography stubs to Category:Salem Metropolitan Statistical Area geography stubs

Nominator's rationale: The main article of the category is Salem Metropolitan Statistical Area. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this is the common way to refer to it, and the reference does not always mean the statistical area.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As discussed above, it's not a good idea to rigidly define metropolitan area categories as "Metropolitan Statistical Area" categories. The fact that an article exists by the name "Salem Metropolitan Statistical Area" does not make the MSA a useful basis for a category. --Orlady (talk) 04:54, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: relisted at CFD 2013 March 4. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose renaming Category:Augusta – Richmond County metropolitan area to Category:Augusta–Richmond County Metropolitan Statistical Area

Nominator's rationale: The main article of the category is Augusta–Richmond County Metropolitan Statistical Area. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this is the common way to refer to it, and the reference does not always mean the statistical area.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Augusta metropolitan area. As discussed above, it's not a good idea to rigidly define metropolitan area categories as "Metropolitan Statistical Area" categories. (The fact that an article about the "Metropolitan Statistical Area" exists does not make the MSA a useful basis for a category.) For the category, I suggest not including "Richmond County" because nobody calls it that in real life. Augusta is the main city in the metro area; Richmond County is an important component of the region, but not a place that people identify as part of the metro area name. --Orlady (talk) 04:58, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Aususta metropolitian area. Since Augusta and Richmond County are essentially coextensive (sort of like Indianapolis, Indiana and MArion COunty, Indiana) this is a really odd name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: relisted at CFD 2013 March 4. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose renaming Category:Greenville, South Carolina metropolitan area to Category:Greenville–Mauldin–Easley Metropolitan Statistical Area

Nominator's rationale: The main article of the category is Greenville–Mauldin–Easley Metropolitan Statistical Area. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:50, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this is the common way to refer to it, and the reference does not always mean the statistical area.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As discussed above, it's not a good idea to rigidly define metropolitan area categories as "Metropolitan Statistical Area" categories, and as JPL says, the current name is the common way to refer to this area. --Orlady (talk) 05:06, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: relisted at CFD 2013 March 4. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose renaming Category:Kingsport–Bristol metropolitan area to Category:Kingsport–Bristol–Bristol, Tennessee-Virginia Metropolitan Statistical Area

Nominator's rationale: The main article of the category is Kingsport–Bristol–Bristol, Tennessee-Virginia Metropolitan Statistical Area. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this is the common way to refer to it, and the reference does not always mean the statistical area.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as the least-worst option for now. In common parlance, this is part of the Tri-Cities, Tennessee-Virginia, metropolitan area, which the Census Bureau currently treats as a Combined Statistical Area that also includes the Johnson City metropolitan area. The current category is not ideal because it's not particularly meaningful outside the context of the census, but keeping it as is looks like the simplest and least disruptive choice for now. --Orlady (talk) 05:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: relisted at CFD 2013 March 4. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose renaming Category:Visitor attractions in the Detroit metropolitan area to Category:Visitor attraction in Metro Detroit Category:Visitor attractions in Metro Detroit

Nominator's rationale: The main article of the category is Metro Detroit, and it is used in every subcategory of Category:Metro Detroit except this one. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose current suggestion. The proposed name is in the singular instead of the plural. Neutral if corrected to Category:Visitor attractions in Metro Detroit. Imzadi 1979 → 09:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   Fixed to plural Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. For consistency across U.S. metropolitan regions, I'd prefer to keep the current name and change the other categories to refer to "Detroit metropolitan area." I note that this provides one good example of why it's not helpful to use Metropolitan Statistical Areas as the sole basis for metropolitan categories: Windsor, Ontario, is part of the Detroit metropolitan area a.k.a. Metro Detroit, but it's not part of the U.S. MSA. --Orlady (talk) 05:54, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: relisted at CFD 2013 March 4. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose renaming Category:Cape Fear region to Category:Cape Fear (region)

Nominator's rationale: The main article of the category is Cape Fear (region). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:21, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename and rescope article and category to Wilmington Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is what it is actually about, not the made-up "Cape Fear region" titling. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:40, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Wilmington, North Carolina metro area. That is what is intended hear.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Johnpaclambert regarding the name, but I would avoid the shorthand and rename to Category:Wilmington, North Carolina metropolitan area. --Orlady (talk) 04:32, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: relisted at CFD 2013 March 4. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose renaming Category:Austin – Round Rock metropolitan area to Category:Greater Austin

Nominator's rationale: The main article of the category is Greater Austin. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename category and article to Austin–Round Rock–San Marcos Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is the actual name of the MSA here, not the nebulous "Greater Austin" the tourism board made up one day. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Greater Austin. This is the common way to refer to the area.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:05, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep current name. Consistency in naming style across U.S. metropolitan regions makes category maintenance go more smoothly. --Orlady (talk) 05:40, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: relisted at CFD 2013 March 4. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose renaming Category:San Antonio metropolitan area to Category:Greater San Antonio

Nominator's rationale: The main article of the category is Greater San Antonio. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename category and article to San Antonio–New Braunfels Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is what the MSA is actually called. Note that the article says "Greater San Antonio" is a colloquial name - it's something the Chamber of Commerce made up one day. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. This is not limited to the MSA. That is not the only way to envision or define metro areas.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep current name. Consistency in naming across U.S. metropolitan regions makes category maintenance go more smoothly. --Orlady (talk) 05:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: relisted at CFD 2013 March 4. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:47, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose renaming Category:Duluth–Superior to Category:Twin Ports

Nominator's rationale: The main article of the category is Twin Ports. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:04, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename category and article to Duluth-Superior Metropolitan Statistical Area and prune so it only contains populated-place articles/subcats like the other MSA categories appear to use for their inclusion criterion. "Twin Ports" appears to be something some tourist board made up one day for promotion, and the "Twin Ports" article decribes the Duluth-Superior Metropolitan Statistical Area - which is called the Duluth-Superior Metropolitan Statistical Area, not "Twin Ports Metropolitan Statistical Area" or "Twin Ports" anything else. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Not only is the article title hopeless ambiguous, capitalization aside, but the article itself seems to say that the correct name is the Duluth–Superior MSA. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Duluth-Superior metro area MSAs are not the only way to designate metro areas, and not always what is meant by such terms.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Duluth-Superior metropolitan area, which follows a standard format/style for naming a metropolitan area. "Twin Ports" is inappropriate; it seems to be a semi-promotional term limited to the two cities (and possibly just their port areas) and excluding their suburbs. --Orlady (talk) 05:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment "Twin Ports" sounds potentially ambiguous to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:07, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.